Leadership Styles and Organizational Knowledge Management Activities:

(1)

Leadership Styles and Organizational Knowledge Management Activities: A Systematic Review

Article in Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business · December 2020

DOI: 10.22146/gamaijb.49903

CITATIONS

2

READS

803 3 authors, including:

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

EditorialView project

Special Economic Zones in IndiaView project Nabeel Al Amiri

Tawam Hospital

11PUBLICATIONS 31CITATIONS SEE PROFILE

Gouher Ahmed Skyline University College 158PUBLICATIONS 398CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

(2)

250

Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business

Vol. 22, No. 3 (September-December 2020): 250-275

*Corresponding author’s e-mail: [email protected]

Leadership Styles and Organizational Knowledge Management Activities:

A Systematic Review

Nabeel Al Amiri^*a, Rabiah Eladwiah Abdul Rahim^a, Gouher Ahmed^b

aUniversity Tenaga Nasional, Malaysia

bSkyline University College, United Arab Emirates

Abstract: Leaders play a critical role in the success or failure of their organizations. Leaders can be effective in implementing changes, building their organization’s capabilities, and improving its performance, or the opposite, they could be ineffective. In this systematic review, the authors aim to summarize the findings of previous quantitative research, published between the period from 2000 to 2018, to identify the effect of various leadership styles on organizational Knowledge management (KM) capabilities and activities. The authors reviewed 50 articles found in well- known databases included Emerald, ScienceDirect, Taylor and Francis, Ebsco, Google Scholar, and others, concerning the impact of leadership when implementing KM in business organizations. The review revealed that transformational, transactional, knowledge-oriented leadership, top executives, and strategic leadership have evidence of their constant and positive effect on the KM process. The authors encourage organizations to use a combination of those styles to maximize the effect of leadership on KM. The authors also recommend conducting further studies on the effect of the remaining leadership styles, such as the ethical and servant leadership styles on KM and the other specific KM activities.

Keywords: leadership, leadership styles, knowledge, knowledge management, organization JEL Classification: M000, M100, M150

(3)

Introduction

According to the literature, KM has a significant impact on organizational performance and innovation. Researchers have found a strong link between KM and different aspects of management innovation that provide an organization with a competitive advantage. KM’s implementation in business organizations could be affected by several factors, such as the organization culture, budget, infrastructure, technology, and leadership.

The impact of leadership on business and organizational management has been recognized as a significant factor that could make a difference in organizational performance. The academic gurus proposed several theories, such as the great man theory, various behavioral theories, Lewin’s theory, the contingency theory, the situational leadership theory, the transformational theory, the transactional theory (or managerial leadership), and many others.

Based on the existing literature, the outcome of implementing KM projects and processes in organizations varies according to the style of leadership. The evidence reveals a positive impact of leadership styles on KM, while other studies affirm a contradictory result. Therefore, this paper, as per the existing literature, is the first systematic review that aims to identify the leadership styles and roles recognized as facilitators or inhibitors of building KM capabilities in organizations and the contribution of those styles and roles to the successful implementation of KM activities. Also, it aims to summarize the evidence and come up with recommendations to guide researchers in their future projects.

To achieve the study goal, the authors conducted a systematic literature review of

the quantitative studies published between the period from 2000 to 2018 concerning leadership and KM. Hence, we surveyed some well-known databases, including Emer- ald, ScienceDirect, Taylor and Francis, Ebs- co, Google Scholar, and others.

Literature Review

Leadership is one of the important top- ics that are studied extensively by researchers. They have come up with several different theories and definitions of the concept. To help readers understand the history of the evolution of leadership theories, we have summarized the most common theories in Table 1.

As can be noticed above, there is a problem with the various definitions of leadership, as they are based on one isolated variable.

Therefore, Winston and Patterson (2006) came up with a solution by reviewing over 90 variables that were used by previous researchers and academic gurus to define leadership, and then they proposed an integrated definition of leadership that is “A leader is one or more people who select, equips, trains, and influences one or more follower(s) who have diverse gifts, abilities, and skills and fo- cuses the follower(s) on the organization’s mission and objectives, causing the follower(s) to willingly and enthusiastically expend their spiritual, emotional, and physical energy in a concerted coordinated effort to achieve the organization’s mission and objectives.”

Ribie`re1 and Sitar (2003) addressed the critical role of leadership in organizations that were willing to evolve their culture into a knowledge supporting culture and implement successful KM activities. According to Bolden (2010), leadership, management, and organizational development are all parts of

(4)

one process for enhancing the capacity of organizations, and people, to improve their performance. According to the Center for Creative Leadership, leadership has several roles in developing an organization’s capabilities and implementing strategic changes.

Leadership enables executive teams to collab- orate effectively to drive change and execute strategy, develop processes, skills, mindsets, and tools to navigate change together, ignite innovation across the organization, manage talent, and create the right culture.

On the other hand, the knowledge-based theory (Curado, 2006) of a firm, which is an

extension of the resource-based theory (Bar- ney, 1991), argued that knowledge is a unique strategic resource that does not depreciate the way traditional resources do. According to Polanyi (1966), knowledge, which is classified as explicit knowledge is transmitted for- mally between people, while tacit knowledge is transmitted informally. Nonaka (1994) de- veloped the dynamic theory of organizational knowledge’s creation, which proposed that organizational knowledge is created through a continuous exchange between tacit and explicit knowledge via four mechanisms for in- teractions: socialization, combination, internalization, and externalization.

Theory Description

Great man theories or

hero Great man (hero) is a wise, gifted, noble-hearted man who stands behind an accom- plishment in the world as an outcome of thoughts that dwelt in him (Carlyle, 1840).

Lewin’s leadership theory

and styles It includes three popular leadership behavioral styles that are autocratic, democratic, and laissez-faire (Lewin, Lippitt, and White, 1939).

Leadership behavior and

theories Those theories focus on how leaders behave toward a task, people, and participa- tion, rather than leadership traits (Vroom and Jago, 2007).

Fiedler’s contingency

theory It proposes an interaction of three variables that are leader-member relations, task structure, and leader’s positional power, as determinants for the extent of the situational control that the leader has (Fiedler, 1964).

Situational leadership

theory The style to be used by leaders, such as telling, selling, participating, or delegating depends upon factors, such as the situation, the people, and the task (Blanchard and Hersey, 1969).

Transformational lead-

ership The theory is about the leadership that transforms people and organizations, and raises people to higher levels of motivation and morality. Vision, culture, values, development, teamwork all have meaning in transformational leadership (Fairholm, 2001).

Transactional leadership The theory is about persons who exercise the authority of their office under formal legality; they obey only the law, obligate others, and follow the principle of hierarchy (Weber, 1968, p. 238).

Servant leadership According to Robert Greenleaf (as cited in Essays, UK, 2018), the servant-leadership starts with the leader’s feeling to serve and, then, his role is changed to lead.

Authentic leadership According to Walumbwa et al., (2008), authentic leadership is positively related to ethical leadership and transformational leadership. It includes self-awareness of one’s strengths and weaknesses, self-moral perspective, balanced processing, and being true.

Ethical leadership According to Brown, Trevino, and Harrison (2005), ethical leadership is the demonstration of appropriate conduct through communication, reinforcement, and decision-making.

Table 1: The most common leadership theories

(5)

Hansen, Nohria, and Tierney (1999) proposed two main KM strategies; firstly, the personalization strategy which theorized that tacit knowledge is shared through conversa- tions and direct contact between people, and secondly, the codification strategy which de- scribed the process of conversion of knowledge into a resource that can be used later by people.

The evolution of KM in the last 20 years encouraged many authors to find an appropriate definition that explains the concept.

Alavi and Leidner (2001, p. 114) defined KM as a process that involves various activities; minimally it includes the processes of creating, storing and retrieving, transferring, and applying knowledge. In his study, Heisig (2009) summarized the six most frequent- ly used KM activities that are knowledge transfer, creation, application, storage, identification, and acquisition. Also, he listed the critical success factors of KM including: 1) human-oriented factors that are culture, people, and leadership, 2) organizational processes and structure, 3) technology’s infrastructure and application, and 4) management processes, including strategies, goals, and outcome measurements.

Young (2010) highlighted four levels of successful KM; firstly, the individual (or personal) level includes personal knowledge, capabilities, experiences, competence, and development that is managed by the individ- uals themselves, by using tools, e.g., mobiles, wireless and web-based applications; secondly, team KM is recognized as the collabora- tion between team members to produce new knowledge and transfer knowledge based on “share” or “pull” models of knowledge transfer; thirdly, the organizational KM that includes the introduction of a KM strategy and providing the infrastructure to imple-

ment the KM process across the entire organization through the “top-down approach”;

and fourthly the inter-organizational KM that adopts knowledge from outside resources, e.g., co-partners, customers, suppliers, and competitors.

Based on the above review, we will identify the various leadership styles and roles that fa- cilitate or inhibit an organization’s implementation of its KM activities.

Methods

The authors used the systematic review method to answer the research question and achieve their objectives. The systematic review has a high academic value as it is a col- laboration of experts who synthesize strong evidence by reviewing and summarizing sec- ondary data that is relevant to the question under review. This systematic review was un- dertaken from November 2018 to April 2019.

Inclusion criteria of studies

In this study, the authors have included all the papers that met the following criteria:

1. The title of the article includes the word

“leadership or leader” or an alternative word, e.g., “manager or supervisor.”

2. The title of the article includes the word

“knowledge” or any of the KM activities, e.g., KM, creation, acquisition, identification, transfer, storage, or application.

3. Leadership is the independent variable or a moderating variable in the study, while KM is a dependent or a mediating variable.

4. Quantitative research.

5. Published in peer-review journals between the period 2000 and 2018.

(6)

Exclusion criteria of studies

In this study, the authors excluded all the papers that met the following criteria:

1. Research studied the effect of leadership on information systems and technology rather than KM activities.

2. Qualitative or mixed methodology research.

3. Non-English papers.

4. Papers published before 2000.

Search Strategy

The authors used “leadership,” “leadership styles,” “KM,” and “KM activities” as the key search words to search well-known databases included Emerald, ScienceDirect, Taylor and Francis, Ebsco, Google Scholar, and others.

The authors used “AND & OR” as the main basic Boolean operators to combine keywords in a search. Thus, the main search strategy for this review was “leadership AND (knowledge AND/OR (knowledge management OR knowledge creation OR knowledge

acquisition OR knowledge identification OR knowledge transfer OR knowledge storage OR knowledge application). Additionally, the authors used the filters recommended by some databases to search for the relevant papers.

Primary Research Methods

The review process started by reviewing the titles and abstracts of the selected articles against the inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Then, the included articles were reviewed for the research question, method, sample, tools, and findings. In this study, the included articles are classified in appendixes 1 and 2.

The Study Flow

For this systematic review, the preferred reporting items on systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram was used to map out the flow of information through the different phases of the systematic review. PRISMA (Figure 1) maps out the number of records identified, screened for eligibility, included, and excluded as justified by the inclusion and exclusion criteria (Mo-

Figure 1: PRISMA study flow

(7)

her, Liberati, Tetzlaff, and Altman, 2009). As a result, we ended up with 50 research papers.

The Study Coding Categories

The authors organized the information into tables, including several sub-sections.

Those sub-sections included the author, the year of publication, the design, the sector, the country, the sample size, and the findings. The first author of the study analyzed all the articles and organized the data in the tables. The second and third authors double-checked the results and validated the conclusion and the recommendations.

Results

Paper’s Characteristics

Appendix 1 presents the authors of the included research papers, their year of publication, journals’ names, databases, research design, countries, industries, and samples. An analysis of the contents of Table 1 shows that the number of published papers that are relevant to the systematic review’s question has significantly increased with time. According to the review, 7 (14%) of the research papers were published between 2001 and 2009, 16 (32%) between 2010 and 2014, and 27 (54%) between 2015 and 2019. The authors found 26 (52%) of those papers in Google Scholar, Emerald had 11 (22%), DirectScience con- tained 3 (6%), Taylor and Francis had 2 (4%), and others held 8 (16%).

Those studies were conducted in nu- merous countries; 12 (24%) in Iran, 7 (14%) in Pakistan, 3 (6%) in Spain, 2 (4%) in Iraq, Taiwan, China, Indonesia, India, Nigeria, and Australia, and 1(2%) in the USA, Thailand, Korea, Croatia, Bangladesh, Singapore, UAE, Bahrain, Mongolia, the UK, the Netherlands, Malaysia, and 2 (4%) in multiple countries.

The studies also covered various industrial sectors: education 9 (18%), manufacturing 7 (14%), various-sized organizations 6 (12%), ICT 5 (10%), banking 3 (6%), gov- ernment 3 (6%), oil, gas, and thermopower 2 (4%), service 2 (4%), healthcare 2 (4%), research institutes 2 (4%), food industry 2 (4%), hotels 1 (2%), construction 1 (2%), consulting 1 (2%), technology 1 (2%), export processing zones 1 (2%), multimedia super corridor status firms 1 (2%), and a port company 1 (2%). Concerning the methodology, all the papers were cross-sectional researches.

Regarding the size of the research’s samples, 2 (4%) included 1 to 50 participants, 4 (8%) 51 to 100, 6 (12%) 101 to 150, 4 (8%) 151 to 200, 12 (24%) 201 to 250, 11 (22%) 251 to 300, 3 (6%) 301 to 350, 2 (4%) 351 to 400, and 6 (12%) more than 400. Regard- ing the respondents’ positions, 27 (54%) of the sample were employees, 12 (24%) were at various levels, 5 (10%) were managers and supervisors, 4 (8%) senior managers, 1 (2%) experts, and 1 (2%) students.

Appendix 2 presents a summary of the research papers’ contents, including the leadership styles and roles, the KM activities, and the outcomes of the research. The analysis of the contents of Table 2 shows that 14 (28%) of the included papers studied transformational leadership style, 2 (4%) transactional style, 7 (14%) both transformational and transactional styles, 4 (8%) transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire styles, 4 (8%) knowledge leadership, 3 (6%) leadership in general, 2 (4%) senior and strategic leadership, 1 (2%) leader-member exchange (LMX), 1 (2%) communicative and non-communicative styles, 1 (2%) task-oriented and human-oriented styles and 11 (24%) studied multiple leadership styles, including reward- ing, directive, innovator, monitor, autocratic, democratic, consulting, counseling, telling,

(8)

selling, referent power, cognitive style, trust, empowering, authority, leadership traits, coercive power, legitimate power, encouraging, self-management, initiating structure, and consideration styles. See Figure 2 for the distribution of studies according to the style.

Concerning the KM activities, Figure 3 also shows that 27 (54%) of the included papers studied the KM activities in general, 19 (38%) knowledge sharing, 1 (2%) knowledge creation and application, 1 (2%) knowledge transfer, 1 (2%) knowledge acquisition, and 1 (2%) looked at knowledge slack, absorptive capacity, and tacitness.

Paper’s Contents Summary Transformational leadership

Regarding the systemic review’s question concerning the influence of leadership styles and roles on KM, the authors found in 12 studies that transformational leadership had a positive, significant correlation with the entire KM capability and its various activities, such as knowledge creation, transfer, utilization, retention, integration, and others (Aung and Vinitwatanakhun, 2018; Farooqi,

Gohar, Nazish and Ahmad, 2017; Uddin, Fan and Das, 2017; Nouri, Mousavi and Soltan, 2016; Hayat, Maleki Hasanvand, Nikakhlag and Dehghani, 2015; Birasnav, 2014; Gelard, Boroumand and Mohammadi, 2014; Noruzy, Dalfard, Azhdar, Nazari-Shirkouhi and Re-

zazadeh, 2013; Allameh, Babaei, Chitsaz and Gharibpoor, 2012; Analoui, Doloriert and Sambrook, 2012; Nguyen and Mohamed, 2011; Crawford, 2005). Another study found that transformational leadership had a positive moderating effect on the relationship between KM and organizational effectiveness (Chi, Lan, and Dorjgotov, 2012).

On the other hand, the effects of transformational leadership were studied on particular KM activities. Eight studies into the effect of transformational leadership on knowledge sharing found that transformational leadership had a direct, significant, and positive impact on knowledge sharing (Al-Husseini and Elbeltagi, 2018; Park and Kim, 2018; Le and Lei, 2017; Mahmood and Khattak, 2017; Imdad Ullah, Bin Ab Hamid and Shahzad, 2016; Al-Husseini and Dosa, 2016; Akpotu and Jasmine, 2013; Mushtaq

*Some studies have included more than one leadership styles

Figure 2: Relevant papers’ distribution according to leadership roles and styles*

(9)

and Bokhari, 2011). Another study found a significant relationship of transformational leadership with the internal component of knowledge sharing (Chen and Barry, 2006).

Some components of transformational leadership, particularly individual’s consideration and individual’s inspirational impact positively on knowledge sharing activities, while the intellectual stimulation and inspirational motivation do not significantly encourage activities related to knowledge sharing (Rawung, Wuryaningrat, and Elvinita, 2015).

Furthermore, the idealized influence is significant only when considered with socialization, the intellectual stimulation leadership is significantly correlated with all the dimensions of knowledge sharing (socialization, externalization, combination, and internalization), and the individualized consideration is significant for knowledge externalization (Bradshaw, Chebbi, and Oztel, 2015).

Furthermore, a few studies revealed that transformational leadership had a positive effect on negotiation, which is a component of knowledge acquisition (Politis, 2001), while leadership constructs including emotional in- telligence, leadership traits, and transformation team (i.e. a team of experts who lead a project) significantly influence the transfer of

knowledge (İdris, Ali, and Godwin, 2015) and transformational leadership positively affects all the strategic variables, including knowledge slack, absorptive capacity, and tacitness directly and indirectly (Garcı´a-Morales, Llore´ns-Montes, and Verdu´-Jover, 2008).

Transactional leadership

Transactional leadership, another common leadership style, was found in four studies has a significant, positive relationship with KM’s capabilities and activities (Farooqi, Go- har, Nazish, and Ahmad, 2017; Ghanbari and Abedzadeh, 2016; Hayat, Maleki Hasanvand, Nikakhlag and Dehghani, 2015; Analoui, Doloriert, and Sambrook, 2012; Nguyen and Mohamed, 2011). Furthermore, transactional leadership has a significant positive relationship with particular components of KM, which are knowledge’s externalization and internalization (Allameh, Babaei, Chitsaz, and Gharibpoor, 2012), and knowledge sharing (Hussain, Abbas, Lei, Haider, and Akram, 2017).

On the other hand, particular components of transactional leadership were found to positively affect knowledge management activities. Contingent rewards, one of the transactional dimensions, was found to have

Figure 3: Relevant papers’ distribution according to the KM’s activities and capabilities

(10)

a positive correlation with knowledge sharing (Farooq, Hanif, and Khan, 2018), with socialization, and combination (Bradshaw, Chebbi, and Oztel, 2015), and with both internal and external knowledge sharing with customers (Chen and Barry, 2006). Also, the initiating structure, one of the transactional dimensions, was found to be positively correlated with communication and the problem of understanding the components of knowledge acquisition, and negatively correlated with the personal traits, organization, and negotiation (Politis, 2001).

A few studies found no significant relationship between transactional leadership and KM (Aung and Vinitwatanakhun 2018;

Crawford, 2005), transactional leadership with conversion and socialization (Allameh, Babaei, Chitsaz, and Gharibpoor, 2012), and the dimensions of the contingent reward with knowledge sharing (Rawung, Wuryanin- grat, and Elvinita, 2015).

Other Leadership Styles

Regarding knowledge leadership, evidence was found that knowledge-oriented leadership had a positive effect on KM (Jad et al., 2017; Sadeghi and Rad, 2018; Donate and De Pablo, 2015), and it also had positive effects on knowledge creation and application (Safari and Azadehdel, 2015).

About the other leadership styles, some papers revealed that leadership, in general, correlated with KM (Kafashpoor, Shakoori, and Sadeghian, 2013) and had a positive moderating effect on the relationship between knowledge sharing and organizational learning (Khalid and Ahmed, 2015), while leadership behavior (i.e. leadership style, professional authority, and counseling skills) had a positive relation with KM (Tang, 2017).

Furthermore, one study inferred that senior

managers’ attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control all had a positive influence on the intention to encourage knowledge-sharing, which in turn is the main determinant of corporate knowledge-sharing behavior (Lin and Lee, 2004). Additionally, the strategic dimension of leadership had a positive relationship with the success of KM practices (Mas -Machuca, 2014).

Regarding the directive, participative, and supportive leadership styles, they had minor positive influences on KM (Aldulaimi, 2015). One prior study revealed that the directive and supportive styles had negative associations with KM practices, while the consulting and delegating styles had significant positive relationships with KM practices (Singh, 2008).

Regarding leadership powers, the expert power had positive effects on both knowledge’s acquisition and dissemination, the reward power had a positive effect on knowledge dissemination in small firms, the legitimate power had a negative effect on knowledge acquisition, the coercive power had only a detrimental effect in small organizations, whereas the referent power did not affect anything in the knowledge-based context (Jayasingam, Ansari, and Jantan, 2010).

The remaining papers studied a vari- ety of individual leadership styles, the mentor leadership style was positively related to knowledge sharing behavior, whereas the facilitator leadership style was not found to be related to knowledge sharing behavior (Jah- ani, Ramayah, and Effendi, 2011), the cognitive styles (i.e. radical and innovative-collaborator styles) had a negative impact on KM practices; while the cognitive adaptor style had a positive impact on KM practices (Jain and Jeppesen, 2013), the leader-member exchange (LMX) affected knowledge sharing

(11)

and performance positively and meaningfully (Sharifkhani, Pool, and Asian, 2016), the telling, selling, participating, and delegating styles had a significant influence on KM (Pringga- bayu and Ramdlany, 2017), the democratic style affected KM activities more successfully in small enterprises and enterprises oriented toward international markets, whereas the autocratic style affected KM more in large enterprises (Miloloža, 2018), the command leadership style had a great effect on the KM process, while the supportive leadership style positively and significantly affected three aspects of KM, which are knowledge gen- eration, sharing, and utilization (Akhavan, Zahedi, Dastyari, and Abasaltian, 2014), and the charismatic and human-oriented leadership (communicative styles) had a significant relationship with knowledge sharing, while the task-oriented (non-communicative) style had no relation with knowledge sharing (De Vries, Bakker-Pieper, and Oostenveld, 2010).

Discussion

This study reviewed prior quantitative research to identify the effect of various leadership styles and roles on KM’s capabilities in business organizations, summarize the findings, and come up with recommendations that could guide researchers in the future.

The review found that the role and influence of the transformational, transactional, knowledge-based leadership, and top executives that were studied influenced KM’s activities in several contexts. Other leadership styles were also studied to a limited extent in a certain context.

However, the transformational leadership style was studied in more than half of the included research papers. One-fifth of the included papers pointed out strong evi-

dence for a positive effect of transformational leadership on knowledge management’s capabilities in all contexts, as well as having a strong significant, positive effect on a particular knowledge management activity, namely knowledge sharing. Besides, transformational leadership was also found to have a positive effect on knowledge acquisition, knowledge transfer, and strategic knowledge variables, such as knowledge slack, absorptive capacity, and tacitness in a limited number of studies.

Regarding transactional leadership, four studies provided a significant, positive relationship of transactional leadership with the entire capability and activities of KM.

Also, particular components of transactional leadership were found to affect knowledge management activities positively, mainly the contingent rewards, which had a positive correlation with KM and knowledge sharing. On the other hand, a few studies revealed contra- dicting evidence that transactional leadership had no effect on KM and knowledge sharing.

Regarding the general leadership styles, three studies revealed a positive correlation between leadership and leadership behavior with KM and knowledge sharing. Three studies revealed a positive effect of knowledge leadership on KM, as well as knowledge creation and application, while another two studies provided positive evidence for the relationship between senior managers and strategic leadership on KM and knowledge sharing. Furthermore, the effects of many other leadership styles on KM had been studied, but by an insufficient number of studies.

The findings of those studies vary and, in our opinion, do not provide solid evidence for the effects of those styles on KM.

Lastly, the authors conclude that the transformational, transactional, knowledge-

(12)

based, top executives and strategic leadership were all found to have constant positive effects on KM activities, although in different contexts.

Conclusion

Based on the above discussion, this review found that the transformational, transactional, knowledge-based, top executives and strategic leaderships have positive effects on KM activities. Thus, the authors argue that organizations should use a combination of all those leadership styles to maximize the effect of leadership on KM. In other words, organizations should involve their top executives and strategic leadership, as well as transformational and transactional leadership styles at all organizational levels, as independent variables to build an efficient KM capability and implement KM activities. Furthermore, the authors suggest that knowledge-orienta- tion could enhance the above-discussed relationship if used as a moderating variable.

Recommendations

The authors encourage researchers to direct their future studies to fill the gaps in the literature and concentrate on the inade- quately examined leadership styles and KM activities. Furthermore, they should consider conducting longitudinal studies and using representative samples.

On the other hand, the authors encourage interested researchers to conduct quantitative studies to examine the above-suggested model in various contexts. This will provide evidence of the effectiveness of the model, or suggest new modifications, as well as confirming, or not, the generalizability of the model.

Limitations

All those papers used a cross-sectional design, some of those studies used small samples, and the papers did not consider several well-known leadership styles, such as the ethical and servant leadership style

References

Akhavan, P., Zahedi, M. R., Dastyari, A., & Abasaltian, A. (2014). The effect of organizational culture and leadership style on knowledge management in selected research organizations, International Journal of Scientific Management and Development, 2(9), 432-440.

Akpotu, C., & Jasmine, T-A. (2013). Transformational leadership and knowledge sharing in ICT based organizations in Nigeria, International Journal of Business and Social Science, 4 (12), 100-106.

Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Review: Knowledge Management and Knowledge Man- agement Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107–136. https://doi.org/10.2307/3250961.

Aldulaimi, S. H. (2015). Exploring the effect of organizational culture, leadership, and strategy on organizational effectiveness with mediating effect of knowledge management, Inter- national Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management, 3(4), 1-19.

Al-Husseini, S., & Dosa, T. A. (2016). The Effects of Transformational Leadership on Process Innovation through Knowledge Sharing, International Journal of Economics and Management Engineering, 10(8), 2752-2759.

(13)

Al-Husseini, S., & Elbeltagi, I. (2018). Evaluating the effect of transformational leadership on knowledge sharing using structural equation modelling: the case of Iraqi higher education, International Journal of Leadership in Education, 21(4), 506-517.doi:

10.1080/13603124.2016.1142119.

Allameh, S. M., Babaei, R. A., Chitsaz, A., & Gharibpoor, M. (2012). The study of relationship between leadership styles (transformational/ Transactional) and Knowledge Conversion Processes among Faculty Members in University, Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 6(7), 46-54.

Analoui, B. D., Doloriert, C. H., & Sambrook, S. (2012). Leadership and knowledge management in UK ICT organisations, Journal of Management Development, 32(1), 4-17. https://

doi.org/10.1108/02621711311286892.

Aung, M. L., & Vinitwatanakhun, W. (2018). A study of the relationship between leadership style and knowledge management in Pan-Asia international school, Scholar: Human Sciences, 10(2), 38-45.

Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17 (1), 99–120.

Birasnav, M. (2014). Knowledge management and organizational performance in the service industry: The role of transformational leadership beyond the effects of transactional leadership, Journal of Business Research, 67, 1622–1629. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.09.006

Blanchard, K., & Hersey, P. (1969). Life cycle theory of leadership, training and development journal, 23(5), 26-34.

Bolden, R. (2010). Leadership, management and organisational development. In: Gold, J., Thor- pe, R. and Mumford, A., eds. (2010) Gower Handbook of Leadership and Management Develop- ment. 5th ed. 117-132. Aldershot, UK: Gower

Bradshaw, R., Chebbi, M., & Oztel, H. (2015). Leadership and knowledge sharing, Asian Journal of Business Research, Special Issue. doi 10.14707/ajbr.150001

Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97, 117−134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.03.002

Carlyle, T., (2013). On heroes, hero worship, and the heroic in history (Sorensen D. & Kinser B., Eds.). New Haven, London: Yale University Press, (Original work published 1840)

Center of Creative Leadership (n.d.).Organizational leadership. Retrieved January 19, 2019 from https://www.ccl.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/organizational-leadership-center-for-creative leadership.pdf

Chen, L. Y., & Barry, B. F. (2006). Leadership Behaviors and Knowledge Sharing in Professional Service Firms Engaged in Strategic Alliances, Journal of Applied Management and Entrepre- neurship, 11(2), 51-69.

Chi, H.-K., Lan, C.-H., & Dorjgotov, B. (2012). The moderating effect of transformational leadership on knowledge management and organizational effectiveness, Social Behavior and Personality an International Journal, 40(6), 1015-1024. doi: 10.2224/sbp.2012.40.6.1015 Crawford, C. B. (2005). Effects of transformational leadership and organizational position

on knowledge management, Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(6), 6-16. http://dx.doi.

(14)

org/10.1108/13673270510629927”

Curado, C. (2006). The knowledge based-view of the firm: From theoritical orgins to future implications. Retrieved 21 January, 2019 from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.

org/3e41/145145cf61217ea38f536119d5d0074a2557.pdf

De Vries, R. E., Bakker-Pieper, A., & Oostenveld, W. (2010). Leadership = Communication? The relations of leaders’ communication styles with leadership styles, knowledge sharing and leadership outcomes, J Bus Psychol, 25, 367–380. doi: 10.1007/s10869-009-9140-2

Denyer, D. (n.d.). Appraise the quality of studies. Retrieved February 2nd, 2019 from http://

www.restore.ac.uk/logicofenquiry/logicofenquiry/gst/SR/stages/Pages/6Appraise- thequalityofstudies.html

Donate, M. J., & De Pablo, J. D. S. (2015). The role of knowledge-oriented leadership in knowledge management practices and innovation, Journal of Business Research, 68, 360–370.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.06.022

Essays, UK (2018). A servant leadership analysis leadership essay. Retrieved from https://

www.ukessays.com/essays/leadership/a-servant-leadership-analysis-leadership-essay.

php?vref=1

Fairholm, M. R. (2001). The themes and theory of leadership: James MacGregor Burns and the Philosophy of Leadership, The George Washington University, Center for Excellence in Municipal Management. Retrieved October 15, 2018 from https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/283049025_Themes_and_Theories_of_Leadership

Farooq, M. I., Hanif, M. I., & Khan, M. A. (2018). Importance of empowering leadership, reward and trust towards knowledge sharing, International Journal of Management Excellence, 11(2), 1544-1552.

Farooqi, Y. A., Gohar, R., Nazish, A., & Ahmad, M. (2017). Impact of leadership styles on knowledge management practices in small and medium enterprises of Punjab (Pakistan), Information and Knowledge Management, 7(2), 15-20.

Fiedler, F.E. (1964). A contingency model of leadership effectiveness. Advanced Experimental So- cial Psychology, 1, 149-190.

Garcı´a-Morales, V. J., Llore´ns-Montes, F. J. and Verdu´ -Jover, A. J. (2008). The effects of transformational leadership on organizational performance through knowledge and innovation, British Journal of Management, 19, 299–319. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2007.00547.x Gelard, P., Boroumand, Z., & Mohammadi, A. (2014). Relationship between transformational

leadership and knowledge management, International Journal of Information Science and Man- agement, 12(2), 67-82.

Ghanbari, A., & Abedzadeh, M. (2016). Relation between transactional leadership and knowledge management, Journal of Fundamental and Applied Sciences, 8(3S), 1388-1398.doi: http://dx.

doi.org/10.4314/jfas.v8i3s.233

Hansen, M., Nohria, N., & Tierney, T. (1999). What’s your strategy for managing knowledge?

Harvard Business Review, 106-116.

Hayat A, Maleki Hasanvand, M., Nikakhlag S., & Dehghani M. R. (2015). The role of transformational leadership and its knowledge management processes. Journal of Health Manage- ment & Informatics, 2(2), 41-46.

Heisig, P. (2009). Harmonisation of knowledge management - comparing 160 KM

(15)

frameworks around the globe, Journal of Knowledge Management 13(4), 4-31.doi:

10.1108/13673270910971798

Hussain, S. T., Abbas, J., Lei, S., Haider, M. J., & Akram, T. (2017). Transactional leadership and organizational creativity: Examining the mediating role of knowledge sharing behavior, Cogent Business & Management, 4(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2017.1361 İdris, K. M., Ali, K. N., & Godwin, A. U. (2015). Influence of organizational leadership on 663

knowledge transfer in construction, Asian Social Science, 11(21), 102-110.doi: 10.5539/ass.

v11n21p102

ImdadUllah, M., Bin Ab Hamid, K., & Shahzad, A. (2016). Impact of transformational leadership on knowledge sharing of employees and innovation capability in the dairy sector of Pakistan, Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences (PJSS), 36(1), 87-98

Jad, S. M. M., Geravandi, S., Mohammadi, M. J., Alizadeh, R., Sarvarian, M., Rastegarimeh, B., Afkar, A. … Mohammad, H. (2017). The relationship between knowledge of leadership and knowledge management practices in the food industry in Kurdistan province, Iran, Data in Brief, 15, 155–159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2017.09.031

Jahani, S., Ramayah, T., & Effendi, A. A. (2011). Is reward system and leadership important in knowledge sharing among academics? American Journal of Economics and Business Adminis- tration 3(1), 87-94.

Jain, A. K., & Jeppesen, H. J. (2013). Knowledge management practices in a public sector organi- sation: the role of leaders’ cognitive styles, Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(3), 347-362.

https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-11-2012-0358

Jayasingam, S., Ansari, M. A., & Jantan, M. (2010). Influencing knowledge workers: the power of top management, Industrial Management & Data Systems, 110(1), 134-151. https://doi.

org/10.1108/02635571011008443

Kafashpoor, A., Shakoori, N., & Sadeghian, S. (2013). Linking organizational culture, structure, leadership style, strategy, and organizational effectiveness: Mediating role of knowledge management, Advanced Research in Economic and Management Sciences (AREMS), 10, 158-172.

Khalid, A., & Ahmed, M. (2015). Impact of knowledge sharing on organizational learning: Mod- erating effect of organizational leadership, Asian Journal of Management Research, 5(3), 358- Le, P. B., & Lei, H. (2017). How transformational leadership supports knowledge sharing: Ev-371.

idence from Chinese manufacturing and service firms, Chinese Management Studies, 11(3), 479-497. https://doi.org/10.1108/CMS-02-2017-0039

Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created social climates, Journal of Social Psychology, 10(2), 271-299.

Lin, H-F., & Lee, G-G. (2004). Perceptions of senior managers toward knowledge sharing behaviour, Management Decision, 42(1), 108-125. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740410510181 Mahmood, S., & Khattak, M. A. (2017). The role of transformational leader in developing

knowledge culture in public sector hospitals, International Journal of Organizational Leader- ship, 6, 511-524.

Mas-Machuca, M. (2014). The role of leadership: The challenge of knowledge management and learning in knowledge-intensive organizations, IJELM- International Journal of Educational

(16)

Leadership & Management, 2(1), 97-116. doi: 10.4471/ijelm.2014.10

Merat, A., & Bo, D. (2013). Strategic analysis of knowledge firms: the links between knowledge management and leadership, Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(1), 3-15. https://doi.

org/10.1108/13673271311300697

Miloloža, I. (2018). Impact of leadership styles on enterprise success in the area of knowledge and human resource management, Managing Global Transitions 16(2), 103–122. https://

doi.org/10.26493/1854-6935.16.103-122

Moher D., Liberati A., Tetzlaff J., & Altman D. G. (2009).Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA Statement.BMJ.doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2535 Mushtaq, R., & Bokhari, R. H. (2011). Knowledge Sharing: Organizational culture and trans-

formational leadership, Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, 12(2). Retrieved on 20th February, 2019 from http://www.tlainc.com/articl260.htm

Nguyen, H. N., & Mohamed, S. (2011). Leadership behaviors, organizational culture and knowledge management practices: An empirical investigation, Journal of Management Development, 30(2), 206-221. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621711111105786

Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation, Organization Sci- ence, 5(1), 14-37. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2635068

Noruzy, A., Dalfard, V. M., Azhdari, B., Nazari-Shirkouhi, S., & Rezazadeh, A. (2013). Relations between transformational leadership, organizational learning, knowledge management, organizational innovation, and organizational performance: An empirical investigation, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 64, 1073–1085. doi 10.1007/

s00170-012-4038-y

Nouri, B. A., Mousavi, M. M., & Soltan, M. (2016). Effect of transformational leadership and knowledge management processes on organizational innovation in Ardabil University of Medical Sciences, International Journal of Management, Accounting and Economics, 3(11), 672-698.

Park, S., & Kim, E-J. (2018). Fostering organizational learning through leadership and knowledge sharing, Journal of Knowledge Management, 22(6), 1408-1423. https://doi.org/10.1108/

JKM-10-2017-0467

Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday

Politis, J. D. (2001). The relationship of various leadership styles to knowledge management, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 22(8), 354-364. https://doi.

org/10.1108/01437730110410071

Pringgabayu, D., & Ramdlany, D. M. A. (2017). Creating knowledge management with the role of leadership and organizational culture, Journal of Entrepreneurship, Business and Economics, 5(2), 147–171

Rawung, F. H., Wuryaningrat, N. F., & Elvinita, L. E. (2015). The influence of transformational and transactional leadership on knowledge sharing: An empirical study on small and medium business in Indonesia, Asian Academy of Management Journal, 20(1), 123–145

Ribière, V. M. & Sitar, A. S. (2003). Critical role of leadership innurturing a knowledge-supporting culture, Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 1, 39-48.doi: 10.1057/palgrave.

kmrp.8500004

Sadeghi, A., & Rad, F. M. (2018). The role of knowledge-oriented leadership in knowledge

(17)

management and innovation, Management Science Letters, 8, 151–160.doi: 10.5267/j.

msl.2018.1.003

Safari, A., & Azadehdel, M. R. (2015). The key role of knowledge-oriented leadership in innovation performance of manufacturing and commercial companies of Guilan province, International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences, 62, 1-7. doi:10.18052/www.scipress.

com/ILSHS.62.1

Sharifkhani, M., Pool, J. K., & Asian, S. (2016). The impact of leader-member exchange on knowledge sharing and performance: An empirical investigation in the oil and gas industry, Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management, 7(3), 289-305. https://doi.org/10.1108/

JSTPM-11-2015-0037

Singh, S. K. (2008). Role of leadership in knowledge management: a study, Journal of Knowledge Management, 12(4), 3-15. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270810884219

Uddin, M. A., Fan, L., & Das, A. K. (2017). A study of the impact of transformational leadership, organizational learning, and knowledge management on organizational innovation, Management Dynamics, 16(2), 42-54

Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (2007). The role of the situation in leadership, American Psycholo- gist, 62(1), 17–24.doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.62.1.17

Walumbwa, F., Avolio, B., Gardner, W., Wernsing, T., & Peterson, S. (2008). Authentic leadership:

development and validation of a theory-based measure, Journal of Management 34 (1), 89- 126. doi 10.1177/0149206307308913

Weber, M (1968). The basis of legitimacy. The theory of social and economic organization. Oxford Uni- versity press, 5th printing, p. 328

Winston, B. E., & Patterson, K. (2006). An integrative definition of leadership, International Jour- nal of Leadership Studies, 1(2), 6-66

Yang, J.-T. (2007). Knowledge sharing: Investigating appropriate leadership roles and collabora- tive culture, Tourism Management 28(2), 530-543. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2006.08.006 Young, R. (2010). Understanding the four dimensions of knowledge management. Retrieved

on April, 20^th, 2019 from http://www.knowledge-management-online.com/understanding-the-four-dimensions-of-knowledge-management.html

(18)

Appendices

Appendix 1: Characteristics of articles included in the review

Author/s Study Design Country Industry Sample Size

Politis, 2001 Cross sectional Australia Manufacturing 216 employees Lin & Lee, 2004 Cross sectional Taiwan Large companies 154 senior managers Crawford, 2005 Cross sectional USA Education 1,046 non-traditional

students and others Chen & Barry, 2006 Cross sectional Taiwan & USA Professional service

firms 165 employees

Yang, 2007 Cross sectional Taiwan Hotel 499 employees

Garcı´a-Morales., Llore´ns-Montes, & Ver- du´-Jover, 2008

Cross sectional Spain Organizations 408 CEOs

Singh, 2008 Cross sectional India Software firm 331 knowledge workers

Jayasingam, Ansari, &

Jantan, 2010 Cross sectional Malaysia Multimedia super

corridor status firms 402 knowledge workers

De Vries, Bakker-Pieper,

& Oostenveld, 2010 Cross sectional Netherlands Governmental orga-

nization. 279 employees Mushtaq & Bokhari, 2011 Cross sectional Pakistan Banking 116 employees Nguyen & Mohamed,

2011 Cross sectional Australia Small-to-medium

sized enterprises (SMEs)

157 middle managers

Jahani, Ramayah, & Effen-

di, 2011 Cross sectional Iran University 126 lecturers

Allameh, Babaei, Chitsaz,

& Gharibpoor, 2012 Cross sectional Iran University 90 faculty members

Analoui, Doloriert, &

Sambrook, 2012 Cross sectional UK Information and communications technology (ICT)

111 knowledge managers

Chi, Lan, & Dorjgotov,

2012 Cross sectional Mongolia Research institutes 524 research and development professional

Kafashpoor, Shakoori, &

Sadeghian, 2013 Cross sectional Iran Municipality 224 employees Akpotu & Jasmine, 2013 Cross sectional Nigeria ICT 221 managers & em-

ployees Jain & Jeppesen, 2013 Cross sectional India Thermal power gen-

eration 210 middle and senior managers

Noruzy, Dalfard, Azh- dari, Nazari-Shirkouhi, &

Rezazadeh, 2013

Cross sectional Iran Manufacturing com-

panies 280 managers

Gelard, Boroumand, &

Mohammadi, 2014 Cross sectional Iran Colors, chemicals, textile and leather industries

47 experts

(19)

Akhavan, Zahedi, Dastyari,

& Abasaltian, 2014 Cross sectional Iran Research 224 experts, research-

ers, and managers

Mas-Machuca, 2014 Cross sectional Spain Consulting 100 knowledge work-

ers and KM project managers

Birasnav, 2014 Cross sectional Bahrain Service firms 238 managers Aldulaimi, 2015 Cross sectional GCC countries Telecommunications

companies 384 human resources professionals

Khalid & Ahmed, 2015 Cross sectional Pakistan Banking 103 employees

İdris, Ali, & Godwin, 2015 Cross sectional Nigeria Construction 220 knowledge workers

Bradshaw, Chebbi, &

Oztel, 2015 Cross sectional UAE Schools 223 employees

Rawung, Wuryaningra, &

Elvinita, 2015 Cross sectional Indonesia Small- and medium-scale production companies

176 owners & managers

Safari & Azadehdel (2015) Cross sectional Iran Manufacturing and commercial companies

282 employees

Hayat, Maleki Hasanvand, Nikakhlag, & Dehghani, 2015

Cross sectional Iran University 214 employees

Donate & De Pablo, 2015 Cross sectional Spain Technology 111 CEOs and direc- tors

Nouri, Mousavi, & Soltan

, 2016 Cross sectional Iran University 277 managers, em-

ployees, and faculty members

Imdad Ullah, Bin Ab Ha-

mid, & Shahzad, 2016 Cross sectional Pakistan Dairy sector 254 managers and owners

Ghanbari & Abedzadeh,

2016 Cross sectional Iran Plastic industry 253 of managers, ex-

perts, and employees Al-Husseini & Dosa, 2016 Cross sectional Iraq Public higher educa-

tion 254 employees

Sharifkhani, Pool & Asian,

2016 Cross sectional Singapore Oil and gas 116 employees

Pringgabayu & Ramdlany,

2017 Cross sectional Indonesia State Owned-Port

Company 412 employees

Tang, 2017 Cross sectional China Medical industry 288 managers, physi- cians, and employees Farooqi, Gohar, Nazish, &

Ahmad, 2017 Cross sectional Pakistan SME sector 302 employees

Jad et al., 2017 Cross sectional Iran Food industry 316 employees

Uddin, Fan & Das, 2017 Cross sectional Bangladesh Export processing

zones 273 managers

Mahmood & Khattak,

2017 Cross sectional Pakistan Public sector hospi-

tals 100 nurses, doctors,

and paramedics

(20)

Hussain, Abbas, Lei, Haid-

er, & Akram, 2017 Cross sectional Pakistan Telecom 300 supervisors

Le & Lei, 2017 Cross sectional China Large manufacturing

and service firms 353 managers

Miloloža, 2018 Cross sectional Croatia Various-size enter-

prises 60 presidents or executive board members Farooq, Hanif & Khan ,

2018 Cross sectional Pakistan Banking 300 top and middle

level managers

Sadeghi & Rad, 2018 Cross sectional Iran Governorate 207 employees

Aung & Vinitwatanakhun,

2018 Cross sectional Thailand Schools 35 teachers

Park & Kim, 2018 Cross sectional Korea Manufacturing 209 employees

Al-Husseini & Elbeltagi,

2018 Cross sectional Iraq Higher education 250 employees

Appendix 2: Information extracted from the articles included in the review

Leadership Style/

Role KM Activity Findings

Politis, 2001 Self-management Transformational Transactional Initiating structure Consideration

Knowledge acquisition:

Communication / problem understanding Personal traits Control Organization Negotiation

A positive effect of self-management on communication and problem understanding, personal traits, and organization.

A positive effect of transformational style in negotiations.

A positive effect of transactional style on personal traits and organization.

A positive effect of initiating structure on communication/problem understanding

A negative effect of initiating structure on personal traits, organization, and negotiation.

Consideration has no effect on knowledge acquisition.

Lin & Lee, 2004 Senior managers intentions to encourage knowledge sharing

Knowledge sharing A positive correlation of senior managers intentions to encourage knowledge sharing

Crawford, 2005 Transformational Transactional Laissez-faire

KM A positive correlation of transformational leadership with KM.

A positive correlation of the combination of organizational position and transformational leadership with KM.

A negative correlation of laissez-faire leadership with KM.

No correlation between transactional leadership and KM.

(21)

Chen & Barry,

2006 Transformational

Contingent reward Laissez-faire

Knowledge sharing:

Internal External

A positive correlation of transformational leadership behavior with internal knowledge sharing.

A positive correlation of contingent reward leadership behavior with both internal and external knowledge sharing with customers.

A negative correlation of laissez-faire leadership with external knowledge sharing.

Yang, 2007 Facilitator Mentor Innovator Monitor role

Knowledge sharing A positive correlation of leader’s facilitator, mentor, and innovator roles with knowledge sharing effectiveness.

A negative correlation of leader’s monitor role with knowledge sharing.

Garcı´a-Morales., Llore´ns-Montes

& Verdu´-Jover, 2008

Transformational Knowledge slack Absorptive capacity Tacitness

A positive direct effect of transformational leadership on all variables.

Note: knowledge slack, absorptive capacity and tacitness mediate the relationship between transformational leadership and organization learning and innovation.

Singh, 2008 Directive Supportive Consulting Delegating

KM A positive relationship between con-

sulting and delegating styles with KM.

A negative association of directive and supportive styles with KM.

Jayasingam, Ansari & Jantan, 2010

Legitimate power Coercive power Reward power Referent power Expert power

KM A positive effect of expert power on knowledge acquisition and dissemination.

A negative effect of legitimate power on knowledge acquisition.

A positive effect of reward power on knowledge dissemination in small firms.

A positive effect of coercive power has a detrimental effect on KM in small organizations only.

No effect of referent power on KM.

De Vries, Bak- ker-Pieper &

Oostenveld, 2010

Communicative:

Charismatic Human-oriented Non- communicative (Task-oriented leadership)

Knowledge sharing A positive relationship between communicative and knowledge sharing.

No relation between non-communicative style and knowledge sharing.

Mushtaq &

Bokhari, 2011 Transformational Knowledge sharing A positive effect of transformational leadership on knowledge sharing and promoting knowledge sharing.

Nguyen & Mo-

hamed, 2011 Transformational

Transactional KM A positive relationship between both

transformational and transactional leadership and KM.

(22)

Jahani, Ramayah

& Effendi, 2011 Facilitator

Mentor Knowledge sharing A positive relationship between the mentor leadership style and knowledge sharing.

No relation between facilitator leadership and knowledge sharing.

Allameh, Babaei, Chitsaz &

Gharibpoor, 2012

Transformational

Transactional KM:

Knowledge conversion Socialization

Externalization Combi- nation Internalization.

A positive correlation between transformational leadership and all variables.

A positive correlation between transactional leadership and knowledge externalization, and internalization.

No correlation between transactional leadership and knowledge conversion and socialization.

Analoui, Dolori- ert & Sambrook, 2012

Transformational Transactional Passive-Avoidance leadership

KM A positive correlation between trans-

formational and transactional leadership styles and KM.

No relation exists between passive avoidance leadership and KM.

Chi, Lan & Dor-

jgotov, 2012 Transformational lead-

ership (Moderator) KM A positive moderating effect of transformational leadership on the relation of KM and organizational effectiveness.

Note: transformational leadership and KM have a reinforcement interaction effect on organizational effectiveness.

Kafashpoor, Shakoori & Sade- ghian, 2013

Leadership style KM A positive relationship between leadership style and KM.

Note: KM has a mediating role in the relationship between leadership style and effectiveness.

Akpotu & Jas-

mine, 2013 Transformational Knowledge sharing A positive relationship between transformational leadership and knowledge sharing.

Jain &Jeppesen,

2013 Cognitive styles:

Radical style

Innovative-collabora- tive or adaptive style

KM A positive effect of the adaptive style on KM practices.

A negative effect of the radical and innovative-collaborator style on KM.

Noruzy, Dal- fard, Azhdari, Nazari-Shirkouhi

& Rezazadeh, 2013

Transformational KM A positive effect of transformational leadership on organizational learning and KM.

Note: transformational leadership influences organizational innovation through organizational learning and KM.

Gelard, Borou- mand & Moham- madi, 2014

Transformational KM A positive correlation between trans-

formational leadership and KM.